But have no fear – in the distance, you can see the cavalry coming! The governor is boldly addressing both the T’s managerial failures and the funding gap. There’s going to be — maybe — a funding commission! Perhaps next year. After the election. If they get to it. Goes along with the governor’s apparent “Y2K by 2040” transit ambitions. In the meantime, though, we’ll have fare increases. Isn’t that wonderful?

The choice to be ambitious about energy comes not from a romantic view of the future, but from a recognition that we are teetering on societal collapse — no exaggeration — and that it requires immediate action:

“adaptation limits are expected to be exceeded” is another way of saying “Shit’s gonna break down on a huge scale, in ways that many people, even whole regions, will find impossible to respond to effectively.”

Just about nobody is taking climate change completely seriously at present, because, let’s face it, doing so is traumatic. To absorb the full implications of climate change is to realize that even a level of action beyond what’s reasonable to hope for can at best avert the worst of the damage.

Changes in ecosystems that are effectively permanent and irreversible are already underway; within the century, we will enter a range of climate conditions entirely new to our species. There is no “safe” space available anymore.

To take that seriously is to support massive, immediate carbon reductions, not only at the level of theory, not only in statements and proclamations and pledges, but in the sense of preferring the lower carbon strategy in every local, city, state, or federal decision, whether it’s about land, housing, transportation, infrastructure, agriculture, taxes, regulations, or lifestyle habits.

Leave a Reply

Reflecting on the article by David Roberts that you linked — it is interesting that the Senate bill mentions nothing about zoning and permitting. Roberts describes the dynamics in my town really well, where so-called “environmentalists” are in favor of renewable energy and mass transit only if they involve zero disruption to the town’s physical layout.

The Globe’s tedious and poorly reasoned cheerleading for any pipeline because needs reminds me exactly of it’s equally tedious and poorly reasoned support for any nuclear plant because needs, including those that we didn’t need and were cancelled after costing consumers billions of dollars.

There’s really nobody at the Globe who knows anything about energy, so they are at the mercy of whatever besuited “expert” schedules a meeting with their editorial board. That and their own natural crackpot realism.

Back in 1998 the Globe back an industry-backed energy deregulation ballot question that, after it passed, jacked up residential rates. In a conversation with an electric industry analyst a few years later he mentioned it did beget lower corporate rates. I suspect the Globe made out on that while us schmucks had to dig deeper into our pockets.

drekeo, are you sure about that? I do not recall a dereg ballot question. The Legislature did vote to stuff the utility’s mouths with gold when it restructured the utility industry at about the same time.

The net benefits of that restructuring, in which the electric utilities were forced to sell their power plants and were barred from ever putting ratepayer money at risk except for transmission and distribution projects, has arguably been positive. it would certainly have been more so without the mouth stuffing.

Most recently the SJC ruled that the ban on putting ratepayers at risk applied to that big pipeline scheme through Western Mass, which killed the project.

The restructuring was definitely not deregulation, to the contrary it banned power generators from the public trough.

The Globe follows what is fashionably contrarian to be “radically centrist” in the worst way. From charters to deregulation to boondoggles like Boston 2024 or GE (a bet already souring alongside its stock performance). To cheerleading absolutely anything the Baker administration does or does not do.

The irony is, they have damn good reporters. The Spotlight team is still there. Their public education beat reporter knows what he is talking about. Their
Recent series on race in Boston is excellent reporting and is exactly what a major urban newspaper should be doing.

While there should be a wall of separation between the subjective tone of an editorial page and the objective nature of reporting, maybe the team of middle aged white guys in Wellesley who write the editorials can embed with some real reporters before they pen their next piece. They may actually learn something.

Couldn’t agree more re: Baker riding the T. I’m not sure how he defines “traditional commute.” In fact every legislator should ride the T as much as possible.

This said, at least Baker shows up at the State House. I recall chiding Governor Patrick for his telecommuting, which must have been an annoyance to the people who didn’t have that privilege (most other people who work in the State House).